List Generic Tools

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Even with strong annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint), the description adds substantial behavioral context: 'Read-only — it changes nothing in Procore,' pagination page reporting, common HTTP error statuses (401/403/404), and the company_id default from procore_set_config. No contradiction with annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is eight sentences, each providing unique information: purpose, documentation link, use case, default, return format, read-only assurance, error payloads, and endpoint. There is no filler or redundancy, making it well-structured and front-loaded.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema, the description compensates by explaining the JSON array return and page-count reporting. It also covers error handling, required parameters, and the company_id default, making the tool's behavior fully understandable for an agent.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema covers 100% of parameters with detailed descriptions. The description adds the extra semantic that company_id defaults to the value set by procore_set_config when omitted, which is not in the schema, and clarifies the role of page and per_page, going beyond the schema's baseline.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description opens with a specific verb 'Returns' and resource 'all Generic Tools in the specified Company,' clearly defining the tool's scope. It distinguishes from related siblings like list_generic_tool_items by focusing on the tool definitions themselves and explicitly frames the tool as a discovery/ID-lookup mechanism.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Provides explicit usage guidance: 'Use this to discover generic tools or to look up the id of one before calling a tool that needs it.' However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative sibling tools, though the context is clear enough.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.